Threesology Research Journal
Novum Organum Threesiarum
(New Instrument of Threes)
- page six-

(The Study of Threes)

Like mathematics, philosophy and physics, singular ideas are developed within a framework such as an axiom, syllogism or model, from which multiple inferences to imagined "real" world events can be used in analogy; which are then used to support the ideas. While singular ideas may have multiple parts which give the impression of a greater scope of consideration, such as for example, the derivation of ideas such as multiple dimensions, complexity, variables, etc., stressing plurality over singularity; such conceptions are made without reference to a larger body of ideas using the same dualistic matrix of singularity and plurality, regardless of terms or symbols being applied. In other words, they don't see the organization of their ideas as possibly being just another flavor of the same type of mental construction process.

We find the following comments from the abstract entitled "Mathematical Kinds, or Being Kind to Mathematics" by:

David Corfield
Dept. of Philosophy
University of York

...However, as several philosophers have pointed out there must be some kind of connection between our earlier and later theoretical grasp of these entities, otherwise how would you know you were manipulating the same sort of thing? On the other hand, merely counting shared properties is not enough. For Aronson, Harre and Way (1994) achieving verisimilitude is not about getting more properties right than wrong, but about not straying too far from the correct kind in your hierarchical classification of what there is...

I have selected the foregoing comments from the abstract not because there isn't other material relevant to the Novum Organum Threesiarum discussion, but because it contains three basic issues I want to address for the present, in-this-moment context:

  1. It makes a direct reference to the counting of shared properties, which appears to be the case when many assume to collect examples involving a set quantity such as "three", with this value as the singularly shared "property". (The word "property" was introduced in the previous page as a third characteristic between the Heisenberg principled "position and momentum" uncertainty.)

  2. It points out the need for establishing some working referential criteria.

  3. The desire to maintain the semblance to an earlier established formula within which one can apply some working functionality.

I will attempt to briefly address each of the three in-turn because they give an articulated voice to contemplations that need to be unraveled from the "Threes Phenomena Entanglement". The 'Entanglement' simplistically tagged with a piece of written-on masking tape contoured around a presumed circumference (circular mentality), involving inferences meant to minimize, disparage or incite defensively retributive tit-fot-tats involving a "threes" orientated discussion:

  1. Use of the numerical value "3", regardless of symbolism being used; is, I will admit, a superficiality.

    • But, then again, most people express ideas in superficial ways, and often think superficially as well. Yet, though such an answer might be defined more of as a defensive gesture than any real answer, we should then also cite that the recognition of a pattern very frequently begins by the comparison of an obvious quality. The "quality" in this sense is the quantity "three". While some may use the Three as a pseudo-tool of augury to suggest a personalized attribute as a type of psychology that is turned into some form of counseling technique given distinction because it is non-mainstream and addresses concerns central to a person seeking some personal identification which gives some s-emblematic reference to "their place" in the world; such a usage should not be labeled the dominant criteria by which all "threes" collections are undertaken, as if to establish a preponderance of evidence to support one's claims that are not to be subjected to any rigourous examination.

  2. Establishing a working referential criteria, beyond a mere list accumulation based on one or more superficialities, is a secondary, but crucial consideration for establishing a working philosophy which can be definitively, if not widely applied by which an overall working model of thinking and even thinking about thinking may be established.

    • The referential criteria, if it is to be original, must not only amass examples from different subject areas, but the models of the subject areas must likewise be collated for deducing the used referential pattern for applicability. If any model is use, for example, a biological-evolutionary one, does it assist in the design of a "threes"-specific referential criteria, or does it subject it to thinking about threes in a singularly exclusive way?

  3. The usage of a previously formulated hierarchical classification system, is like like living in the security of a castle with a draw bridge, moat, and a siege propelling intellectual armament array.

    • While time-honored securities of tradition present some with a comfort zone of warm and fuzzy intellectual stability, is also reminiscent of a frothing dog on a chain attached to a pole in a given area of a yard within a fence, within a property line, within a county, within a city, etc... Outside the confinement, the dog is "lost", unless the rule-making owner has introduced the dog to frequent excursions beyond its known boundaries and enjoys some level of freedom to explore the larger landscape of perceptible scenery, so long as it doesn't stray too far afield. While some lost dogs do find their way home, even after what appears to be an incredible journey and is thought as much by receiving attention by way of a film, book or journalistic production thereof; most lost dogs remain lost from the original rule-making owner... and either perish or find a new rule-making owner in a different context.

    A person in search of referential criteria on which to impart a usefulness to a collected list, may or may not begin with the structure of a personalized morality as a type of castle from which to peer out at the larger world, or even venture forth into the many unknowns of various subjects. Likewise for the usage of religious observances and general social laws of a given community. Aside from these interactive components for developing a model of thinking, they may or may not permit themselves to intellectually stray from one or more of the physically practiced observances which may constrain not only the behavior but the thinking of some, many, or most. Beyond these, the criteria for referencing information which, like most people is piece-mealed into a memorized working list, might alternatively be derived from knowledge obtained by way of reading, listening or various other personal experiences such as working at a given occupation or many occupations, whatever the case may be.

    If the items in one's memorized list of knowledge is small, one might assume that the referential criteria for making use of the information will be just as small, referentially, or only to this type of person such as in terms of organization and application. Yet, those with a large knowledge base in terms of acquiring information that can be recalled from a working memory, may not use the information to establish other patterns existing within the list itself. In other words, their usage of a large listing of knowledge is small. For example, a person might participate in the collection of numerous examples of "threes", yet does not identify any pattern beyond the three except in the context from which the example was taken. Any auxiliary pattern might well be from a further memorization of those who have recognized one or more other patterns. This particular type of "threes" collector is thus also collecting different ideas about "threes" from others, but are not themselves actively engaged in the identification of patterns without being pointed out by someone else.

    Those arguing against any value whatsoever to the "Threes Phenomena" beyond some pre-established superficiality as denoted by tradionalized interpretations thereof contained in "Esoteric" genres (numerology, astronomy, tarot cards, etc.), which in my view also includes religious interpretations; are those who are like a barking dog chained to a pole which defines their "real world" aligned with the rules established by a presiding authority figure in their life. (In the case of a dog, its owner), and in the case of many Mensa members, is the prioritizing of various syllogisms as if to differentiate differing levels of intellectual superiority within the confines of their organization-of-arrogance, that uses its own self-referential criteria.

    Each one of the three previously introduced "guest" examples (Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Gödel), essentially said the same thing, though, as also mentioned, Planck's Constant is another example there-of stated from a sort of diametrical end. (I permitted Planck to crash in on the conversation since he is always hanging around anyway and we might be called prejudicial or even racist if we were to exclude any reference with a black-body origin.) Nonetheless, the basic idea of consequent limitation is so starkingly similar that one might be inclined to think they were aware of one another's work and simply sculpted the same statue using different materials (or the same tools with the same materials but added their own "personality" to the final expression).

    But, there is little reason for them not to think along similar lines and arrive at a personalized proposal of limitation in terms of reflectiveness which breeds a level of cautiousness. It is a frequent enterprise amongst some kids who want to slow down a group who share a similar speed of action. It is a means of controlling the group without physically laying a hand on them. Those who are not a part of the initial impetus for the group's movement interject a means of changing the group's direction in-line with their own perspective... which at times may be to resist change and maintain some perceived status quo such as by way of tradition, habit, fear of the new, mental/emotional immaturity, etc...

    And even though the above ideas are similar, each are given their due for originality in terms of using a different explanatory model like different kids being permitted to say the same thing, in their own way to their respective peer group..., while giving each a separate level of praise; a scene observed by many an elementary school teacher who places all their training techniques aside in order to wait till what has been said becomes understood by the whole class by way of being filtered through the different types and levels of communication systems used when children interact with one another in their own "child-speak" language.

    Like-minded people must perceive, interpret, translate and communicate with the means most amiable to their perspective. Not only do intelligent people sometimes have a difficult time communicating with the general public, but amongst themselves as well. They can only understand the same thing when it is rendered in the language with which they can best comprehend the material as is being perceived, and not necessarily as that which another thinks is being related to them. The way you tell someone may be interpreted as gibberish, for all the simplicity you attempt to use to illustrate an idea. The land of the Lilliputians does exist in many varieties.

    For example, let us say we have three artists, musicians or mechanics with similar thought processes who are asked to create their own rendition of a pyramid using different materials, or the same materials with different tools. How closely similar (or even dissimilar) would be the result of the final product that may be labeled a work in progress... This of course assumes the individual would not deliberately construct a piece of nonsense to purposely thwart a similarity of being recognized as exhibiting a similarity in thinking... since it is easy to make a pile of junk and then give it the same name as treasure in order to give an impression of participation in a similar exercise one has not interest in at all.

    However, exercises in thinking and thinking applied to activities within a confinement may seem to suggest talent, creativity and even genius, but are solely directed towards escape (unless one wants to include efforts for securing personal goods through various methods of scavenging amongst different prisoners). Various examples might be offered when looking at history by reading (or watching movies about) the accounts of those whose activities were deliberately directed towards elaborate constructions of items thought to be necessary to effect a realization of the intended goal. In this instance I am referring to the exploits of those in the manufacture of clothing and documents to escape a Nazi concentration camp as depicted in the old movie "The Great Escape", based on an actual event.

    Imprisonment, labeled as confinement, labeled as a limitation are not frequently inter-related sequential terms. More so, we do not typically describe all of them in the same breath as when thinking about cognitive limitation. For someone to suggest that the mental state of humanity is exercising a re-created acknowledgment of this form of limitation might well render the discussion for most into a realm of uneasily understood metaphysics unless they use some conventional relatedness such as when comparing the mind of humanity with the assumed omni-state of a god. In other words, most people would not be particularly troubled to think they are limited, are confined, are imprisoned, so long as it is defined as a comparison with that which they, or humanity the whole has no control over. To suggest otherwise is typically responded to with excuses. The usage of such excuses is another admission that such a limitation as the Threes Phenomena is defining, is real and that we can do something about it.

    Some may think that a list of "threes" is a pile of junk, that is until their field of interest is included in the list. Yet, then they may define any attempted application of extended consideration thereof to be a fool-hardy venture... again, until some aspect of their own philosophical adventurism is applicably attended to. Some are quick to denote limitations in others, but not so quick as to notice it in one's own interests. Very often, one attempts to impose limitations on another (person, place, thing) in order to give oneself the impression of being less limited, but not necessarily without limitation. This is like a teenager knocking something down (physically, verbally or mentally) in order to build themselves up.

    When speaking of the recurrence of a "one" cognitive limit recital being expressed in different ways in different subjects, some of us are inclined to except comments as axioms without realizing they are a product of a mind exercising a cognitive limit in its own fashion... but not necessarily describing the presence of a cognitive limit in the exercise. In other words, while it may describe a situation in a coherent way with the usage of few words (or symbols, sounds) needed to illustrate the idea, it does not, at the same time, show itself as that which is being described. Take for example the view proposed by William of Ockham (1285-1349), an English scholastic philosopher and assumed author of Occam's Razor: principle (or law) of parsimony:

    The principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.

    While many agree with this principle, they don't see the principle as an exercized expression of the underlying cognitive limit. In other words, more than two is considered "MANY", in the old word-for-number association of primitive counting systems.

    Another example of the cognitive limitation, without realizing the ideas were an example thereof, is in that attributed to the French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes (1596-1650): He developed a dualistic theory of mind and matter; not to mention introducing the use of coordinates to locate a point in two or three dimensions.

    And as a third example: Lao-zi (author of Tao Te China, 6th century BC)

    Dao produces one. One produces two. Two produces three. Three produces the ten thousand things. (In classical Chinese, the "ten thousand things" means "everything." Commentators have long disagreed over what the "one, two, and three" refers to, usually plugging in their favorite cosmological, cosmogonic, or metaphysical model.)

    "Everything" in the preceding reference can similarly be denoted to "Many". If we enumerate the term "Many" with a singular number such as one, though you may prefer the number 4; we have a similar reference in baseball such as the first three bases are numbered but the next one, the presumed "4th" base, is given a separate descriptive called 'Home plate or Home base'. In proteins we find the primary, secondary, tertiary conformations, with these three combined to form the labeled "quaternary" structure. And in both DNA and RNA we find three amino acids which are the same (Adenosine, Cytosine, Guanine), with DNA being particularly denoted as also having Thymine and RNA having Uracil. In short, they are all three -to- one ratios.

    The elephant dance (12K)

    Again, each of these is a description of the recurring cognitive limitation being expressed by humanity in different subject areas. Humanity simply gets caught up in the distracting individual vernaculars as independent philosophies. The so-called professionals in these representative subject areas are like the three blind men and the elephant who cannot even see their own blindness as a limitation. Lack of being able to acknowledge a limitation that is "right before their eyes" has difficulty recognizing the limitation of their derived logic.

    Language is being used to conceal, (socially mollify) the existence of a limitation, much in the manner when a new philosophy was adapted in the field of handicapped individuals and wanted to make their clients feel better about themselves so they adopted labels such as being "challenged" (mentally and/or physically and/or emotionally and/or socially) instead of being "retarded" or "stupid" or "spastic", etc... The usage of the word "retard", for example, was felt to be too harsh and demeaning as well as presenting the clients with a publicly negative stigma or connotation thought to be counter-productive in helping the person achieve all that they can in spite of a physical or mental limitation.

    While not widely recognized, a portion of this re-labeling was based on the attempt by social workers, job coaches. (etc.,) in various related fields; wanting to feel good about themselves since they frequently self-reflectedly absorbed the negative stigmas and connotations by way of a type of being like-wise "guilty of the same by way of association". In other words, they felt less about themselves because they were working with those publicly denoted as being unnormal.

    But the relabeling was also a means by which those in charge of an organization dealing with the handicapped could increase needed staffing roles by a means that was actually a business maneuver which relabeled an old product. It is a tactic similarly used by book publishers and movie producers who alter the title or appearance of a book's cover, as well as appealing to a certain targeted demographic. Despite workers feeling good about themselves because they now work with those who are labeled with what is thought to represent a "fair" and "balanced" assessment of actual, real, true circumstances, (i.e. perceived "reality"), and this is despite whether or not clients actually "feel or think" differently about themselves; the fact remains that the problems involving the incidence for the recurrence of various mental and physical handicaps are not being addressed to an extent which assists to significantly diminish nor eliminate them.

    This is similar to the philosophies of charities, whether they recognize themselves as a religion or not. All of them want you to donate generously, but for all the good they do, they are not looking for a means to significantly diminish nor eliminate the need for themselves as an institution. They want to exist as a charity and therefore exercise a philosophy which helps to perpetuate conditions that ensure they can continue existing. They use language as a tool that manipulates people emotionally and mentally to support their philosophies so as to perpetuate their existence as a means by which the livelihoods of those professing the philosophy of the organization are provisioned. Their philosophy can be seen as a formula proposed as a self-evident axiom which is thought to also provide the only viable solution.

    ...And yet in fact, the formula and its solution may become part of a larger problem because those who created it, use their authority and influence to intimidate others into believing they are correct and refuse to permit the inclusion of "what if this..." or "what about this..." in an attempt by others to provide recognition for the need to be more inclusive with respect to introducing a flexibility in the formula as contingency plans for unexperienced but knowable scenarios that may arise. If this persists for generations, the established, observed, and remembered "truth", become an obstacle towards a larger realization. Such is the case in religion, politics, business, science, art, music, etc...

    Einsteinquote (13K)

    An expression attributed to Einstein says the same thing in a succinct way:

    Problems can not be solved by the same minds which created them.

    Here is a short list of some variations, and let me also note that it is an idea many of us already know, we simply think of it in different ways. Hence, Godel's theorm is not actually a new idea, but an old idea placed into a central point of being observed while wearing a specific type of cloak:

    • Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.
    • We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
    • We can't solve our problems w/ the same thinking we used when we created them.
    • You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.
    • You cant solve a problem with the same mind that created it?
    • Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them.
    • You can't solve a problem at the same level of mind that created it.
    • No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.
    • The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.
    • The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.
    • Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.

    Whether Einstein or the neighborhood aluminum can collector said it is beside the point being addressed. And it should be noted that this is just another way of voicing...

    ...Kurt Godel's Theorem: which showed the futility of attempting to set up a complete axiomatic formalization of mathematics. In 1931 he proved that any consistant mathematical system must be incomplete; i.e., that in any system formulae must be constructed that can be neither proved nor disproved within the system. Moreover, no mathematical system can be proved consistent without recourse to axioms beyond that system. (page 517, The New American Desk Encyclopedia, first printing March 1984.)

    And such a limitation needs to be applied to all religions, government structures (such as economic policies, etc...), sciences, education systems, art perspectives, etc. An idea such that a particular religion's perspective about an unlimited god is a limitation. To say otherwise is an expression of someone's ego and not factuality. No less, the environment of Earth, this solar system, and this galaxy are all placing limitations on the human species which is being forced to adapt to the prevailing geological, geophysical, and galactic rhythms.

    In any case, such an expression of limitation is very often misinterpreted to mean that the same person can not develop an answer for a problem they created, when in fact a person's mind can change or, as in many instances involving businesses, governments and religions; particular problems are perpetrated by these entities so that they can initiate some intended response to give the impression of being justified in their action if not wanting to make themselves appear as the good guy, Calvary coming to save the day, saviour, etc., For example, the French (or C.I.A.) instigating a conflict within a country so that their own or some other government can send in troops which affords it the ability to conceal other activities, not the least of which is to assist in the profit of one or more companies involved in war materials manufacturing; but may include giving a "reason" for going over a budget, some selected person dying in combat, lateral repositioning of people in government positions, developing another government agency, etc...

    Initial Posting Date: Tuesday, April 1, 2014
    Updated Posting: Friday, May 9, 2014

    Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
    Herb O. Buckland